from the wouldn't-they-want-to-know dept

Data that we collected for the titles O'Reilly put out showed a net lift in sales for books that had been pirated. So, it actually spurred, not hurt, sales.

Of course, if you read the details, he's actually saying this is from a study from a couple years ago, and the focus of his point is that there really isn't enough data to say yet. He's hoping that other publishers will work with him to do more research on this subject, but so far, they haven't.

O'Leary, correctly, points out that there are lot of factors involved and it would be nice to have more data to look at the actual impact. But what really struck me is that line about how publishers simply aren't willing to collect the data and study the actual impact of unauthorized copies. I'm trying to figure out why this is. There are so many copyright holders who whine and complain about the impact of unauthorized copies, that you would think they would be all over the idea of working with some researchers to figure out the actual impact (good or bad), so that they can respond accordingly. That they refuse to do so seems oddly telling. It's as if they don't want to know. I can only speculate as to why, but as a guess, I would imagine that some firms are afraid of finding out that the impact isn't as bad as they think (or, as O'Reilly discovered, that it's positive on sales, rather than negative), and suddenly they've lost their "bogeyman" that they've been able to blame poor sales on.

I think they will do studies on the impact of piracy, they just won't work with this guy to do them. We have seen that they are willing to do other types of studies as long as they can control the results.
Here, we get sponsored studies every so often, usually with the methodology hidden.

Re:

I'm just going to go out on a limb here, and say that these guys don't want to fund a study for two reasons. The first is that it's never going to be accurate. I mean how can one group find out how many folks downloaded their book when the internet is so huge? We're not just talking one or two sites hosting this stolen material we're talking about thousands or hundreds of thousands. I mean just think about that.

How can one group possibly go around to all those sources, confirm that they were distributing the stolen work, and then ask for stats to show how many people did indeed steal it? It would be an expensive, arduous study of a group who for legal reasons probably don't want to admit they distributed the stolen work, and all this study would bring about is my second reason..."oh wow a lot of people stole our book!"

I mean at the end of the day that's all these studies are going to come up with. I mean if you think getting accurate stats from websites is going to be tricky try tracking down the actual people who downloaded said book to see how many of them bought it or suggested it to other who then bought it. However, let's just say that someone was crazy enough to fund this survey and they got accurate results.

We already know what they're going to say. A small number of people bought the book and recommended it to others who then bought the book. That number will still be very small compared to the actual number of people who downloaded the book illegally. The study will be published and the good people of the web will all sigh and go "but how many of those people wouldn't have bought the book if someone else wouldn't have stolen it and recommended it?" So what good does an exhaustive study of internet piracy do for a company....NONE AT ALL!

Re: Re:

Well, I don't know about book publishers, but the BSA and CRIA sponsor "the impact of piracy" type studies once in a while, they do it to support their positions, increase the amount they can claim they are losing for lobbying purposes and such, so they can try to get the laws modified the way they want them. Of course, they pay for those results, so the studies aren't much good for finding out real impact, and if they don't get the results they want they just toss them and hire someone else to do it. This is how we get those claims of "we are losing xxx dolars from piracy" and Y number of jobs are lost due to piracy every year, and all that crap.

Re: Re:

"I mean how can one group find out how many folks downloaded their book when the internet is so huge?"

They don't need to. Look at what data you can get and then see what questions you can ask using that data. In this case you could probably start with 'which books were pirated most', a question that doesn't rely on knowing how many, then you could compare that to sales figures and see if there is any correlation. Even if you can't prove anything, you can probably disprove something.

Their Minds Are Made Up

I can only speculate as to why, but as a guess, I would imagine that some firms are afraid of finding out that the impact isn't as bad as they think (or, as O'Reilly discovered, that it's positive on sales, rather than negative), and suddenly they've lost their "bogeyman" that they've been able to blame poor sales on.

Bingo! Start turning out studies which show that pircay isn't as bad as they claim, or that it even helps them, and the government isn't going to be too sympathetic the next time they start crying about how they need stricter copyright laws.

They don't want anyone to know the truth, because the bogus studies suit their purposes perfectly.

Re:

I disagree. I feel like their mentality just doesn't allow for the possibility of "piracy" ever being any kind of benefit at all, ever, period. They just cannot wrap their heads around the possibility. Furthermore, copying = theft = less money in their pockets = bad, and no amount of studies or statistics will ever get them to admit differently.

Bad publicity is still publicity

Is it possible that this is not really about the loss of $$ to piracy, but about the increased visibility through soap-boxing which will generate even more sales? I mean, when else do these behind the scene corporate drones get to share the limelight with their actors/singers/authors?

Additionally, as a media outlet, anti-piracy actions build a sense of security with the clients.

Point being, the data has already been collected and reviewed, it just did not support the need for exposure so they hide it and pretend it does.

There are a few things here that make studies like this very hard to do properly.

First and foremost, we are dealing with individual's actions and morality. To pirate or not pirate, that is a big question. If the risks of piracy are higher (more likely to get caught) are they more or less likely to pirate instead of buy.

Books are a difficult subject as well. While I find many manuals I need online, I often buy the books because the paper version is valuable. However, in the case of fiction books, I can see where the e-reader market may be a better place for them. I can use a manual a bunch of times, I will read most fiction (or non-fiction entertainment) once. So if I read it on my e-reader in a pirated version, there is little chance I would then pay for it.

So you are dealing mostly with what the public would do under a given circumstance, not under all circumstances. The subject of the material would change things. it should be noted the O'Rielly does mostly computer manuals.

The other part is social pressure. People will often answer surveys in the way they are expect to answer, rather than the honest answer. There was a UK study a couple of years back that showed only 10% admitted to illegally downloading, yet the real numbers are 20% or higher. So a study of human actions, based on interviews would be misleading.

Really, the key is this: giving away free copies of something may or may not be good for marketing (good for some, maybe not so good for others) but that choice to give away something free should be up to the person who owns it, not random internet people.

Every time someone decides for the owner to give something away without permission, there is cost. Regardless of if the piracy may increase sales or awareness for some, let's make it clear: The ends do not justify the means. The TD mentality of looking at the end result and then dismissing anything that happened to get there are immaterial is really sort of annoying, and very misleading.

Re: Ooootie Call.

My, a most mesmerizing montage of mixed metaphors!

Morality, being what the majority believes is good or bad, is irrelevant to financial gains/losses due to alleged piracy.

Most surveys prove you can phrase a question in such a way as to get whatever results you want to get, and that most people do not know what they want. So, surveys are either a waste of time or a method of legitimizing misinformation.

"Every time someone decides for the owner to give something away without permission, there is cost. Regardless of if the piracy may increase sales or awareness for some, let's make it clear: The ends do not justify the means. The TD mentality of looking at the end result and then dismissing anything that happened to get there are immaterial is really sort of annoying, and very misleading."

Wow. Just wow. Does your brain really work this way? Let's start with your ambiguous terms:
Cost: A cost to whom? A monetary cost, temporal cost, opportunity cost? Please try to be specific.

"The ends to not justify the means. The TD mentality of looking at the end result and then dismissing anything that happened to get there are immaterial is really sort of annoying, and very misleading." - Philosophical/opinion statement, disregarded.

So, your entire large large post can be summarized as: "it must be costing something to somebody somehow."

Feel free to try again. Be sure to try a little harder. Really express yourself in a logical and forthright manner which will sway people to your opinion.

Re: Re: Ooootie Call.

Wow. Just wow. Does your brain really work this way? Let's start with your ambiguous terms:
Cost: A cost to whom? A monetary cost, temporal cost, opportunity cost? Please try to be specific.

Cost can be a loss of control. Cost can be the inablity to sell the product afterwards. The cost can be forcing the author / musician / whoever to have to do something else for money instead of doing what they do best. The cost can be lost sales, the costs can be lost business deals, the costs can be almost anything.

Because this isn't a straight line A -> B -> C sort of thing, the costs can be measures in dollars, loss of rights, loss of control, or any combination of. Cost isn't always just about money (but you knew that).

So, your entire large large post can be summarized as: "it must be costing something to somebody somehow."

No, I didn't say that, not in the slightest. I said the ends (occassional increased sales, like O'Rielly, which may nor may not be attributable to piracy) doesn't justify random people feeling they have the right to choose for O'Rielly what is and what is not given away for free. TD generally ignores this little (and important) point. If the companies / writers / performers whoever decides to give something away, more power to them. You shouldn't get to make that choice for them.

Please, you are usually smarter than this. You are starting to read like you are applying for a job at TD, and that isn't a good thing.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Ooootie Call.

Apologies;

Accepted. While my opinions aren't always welcome, they aren't based on ether. Defining cost is always difficult, because it isn't just money. It can be time, effort, heck, opportunity costs for that matter. You can consider even the time wasted in creating something that gives nothing back (because it was too widely pirated to sell, example).

Rigid control I think is never the issue. There is plenty of tolerance, and there are reasonable fair use exceptions to copyright already out there. Even low level piracy (the proverbial mix tape) is pretty much one of those things that every sort of agrees to ignore. However, with piracy so rampant, business models are being destroyed as a result. There is perhaps no clearer indication that there is financial impact. The destruction of the business model are something even TD can agree is the results of piracy. That in turn shows that there is loss, even if there are gains for others in other ways. Legally, they aren't trying to prove net losses over an ecosystem, just direct losses from piracy. I think TD has already long since proved that this is happening.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ooootie Call.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ooootie Call.

Rigid control is one of the issues. You touted the tolerance of the mixed tape. If you remember It wasnt until after a Supreme Court ruling allowing it, that it became tolerated. It had something to do with personal use. I believe in Canada their is still a "tax" on blank cassettes to address this issue.

As for costs, since you are going to look for every possible cost to the owner (real and imaginary), what of the costs to society (or individuals)from overly draconian patent/copyright/IP laws? The inhibitions to competition and innovation are first to come to mind. there are the cost to competitors from "rights holders" that sue other companies and individuals claiming infringement just to stop (or profit from) anothers product even when there is no infringement. There are also the cost to consumers from higher prices because of the lack of competition and the use of these laws to allow companies to "corner the market".

Although I may agree with some of your claims, you also need to look at the other side of the coin.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ooootie Call.

Any time someone makes a suggestion like this, I have to laugh.

Going from ice boxes to refrigerators was a clear advance. It was great for consumers, it got rid of a messy, expensive, and inefficient system for distributing ice, and at the same time created a new business that was much more profitable for everyone involved. Even the ice makers moved to become refrigerator sellers. They went from one sort of product (ice as a service) to ice making machine (make your own ice at home).

So sorry, your logic fails, because it doesn't parallel the current system. By your logic, there is still a huge market for ice, but now people don't pay for it, they just steal it from the ice maker's shop directly. They steal his equipment, put it on a street corner, and make free ice for everyone. They don't have a business model, they are just using his stolen equipment. After all, there is still a huge demand for ice, but now nobody has to pay for it. Fridges? Fuggedaboutit. Who needs them things? Ice is free!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ooootie Call.

So, by your logic, piracy is the same as stealing a musician's equipment and masters so that he can't make another copy of his own work. Your analogy is so broken that it's beyond ridiculous. First, analogies relating goods that are scare with those that aren't usually fail. Doubly so for those relating theft to piracy. Yours, as usual, is no exception.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ooootie Call.

No, piracy is stealing and making so many copies of the musician's work that there is no longer any reason for them to do it at all.

Look, AR tried to make a point, and the point failed. Moving from ice to fridged changed the business models because there is no longer a large demand for ice. Piracy doesn't change the demand for music or movies, it just removed the cost. It is the "free ice" concept taken to it's limits.

Honestly, if ice was free,plentiful, and delivered to your door for free every day, I suspect that there would be no refrigerator business, because nobody would invest to go up against free. Certainly nobody would want to try to open an ice business. That is what piracy does, it stunts the market and takes away people's desire to enter into the market. It is an unnatural situation that won't be tolerated forever.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ooootie Call.

The volume of stuff "produced" isn't an indication of a flourishing music industry, it's only that the tools have come to the masses. So the masses create noise.

Almost everyone who owns a house also owns a hammer and other tools. Very few of them can build a house, even though you can buy all the tools very cheaply now at your local DIY. Some do try, renovating their kitchens or trying to build garden sheds, but most of them are hopeless.

With the music tools, their hopeless efforts pile up on mp3 sites, creating an amazing noise floor of junk. You don't have more great music (many would say you have a lot less) but you do have a lot more crap on the floor.

Don't confuse the ability to make music with the ability to create anything of true value. Size of a pile isn't important if all that is in the pile is manure.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ooootie Call.

No, what you have is less than talented amateurs who have the tools, but not the skills, turning out stuff that isn't barely worth the time to listen to once, let alone often.

Put it in more simple terms, people play football (soccer to the Americans out there) all over the world. There are plenty of local championships, country championships, etc.

There is only one Premiere League, the one every player in the world strives to be in, the one that gets played live all over the world. The one that people from all over the world watch and enjoy. There is only one World Cup, there the teams of the world can rise above their local levels to be world renowned.

It isn't to say that there are not good players, good teams, good matches in the lower leagues. But they are lost in the noise, they don't make it out of their local area. Ask someone about football, and they will talk about How Arsenal has really slipped this season, things like that. All over the world.

Remove the world cup, remove the premiere league, and there would still be many people playing football, but none of it would be very relevant. It would be a hobby, a regional game. Kids wouldn't want strive to be great players, because there is no real goal. They would play it for fun, but lose interest over time and move on.

There would still be football, it just wouldn't be as relevant to most people in the world.

The risks are that music becomes less relevant as well. A local delicacy rather than a world flavor. An amateur time relaxation instead of something we have in common.

You don't have a flourishing industry without, well, industry. What you have is amateur hour, all day, all the time. Most people will tune out.

Put another way, how popular or relevant would X Factor or American Idol be without the huge TV audience? Yes, some of those performances have been made famous on the internet. But they have been made famous because first they were seen by millions, who then talked about it. If they were just videos tossed on youtube, they would likely be ignored. They would be just part of the background noise.

* Even if there's more crap online, it doesn't mean there's any less good stuff. In fact, there's *more* good stuff.
* It assumes that people can't ignore the bad stuff but are somehow forced to hear it. Not true.
* It stupidly and totally incorrectly assumes that people can't quickly figure out what's good and what's bad and share that information.
* It assumes there are no good filters.

Please identify the "good filters" and provide any evidence you may have that the US public is able, willing, and benefited by using those filters. It should be remembered that not all citizens of the United States have regular access to high-speed Internet or even computers.

It should be remembered that not all citizens of the United States have regular access to high-speed Internet or even computers.

So the amount of crap on the internet doesn't make any difference to them, only the amount of crap on the radio. Which is plenty.

However, I would say Pandora is pretty good evidence that people are willing, able, and benefitted. It recommends music you will like, and in my experience does an excellent job of it. I'm sure there are lots of others if you're actually interested in finding them.

Do the personal jabs make your think your positions are stronger? You seem to do this a lot on this site. If anything, they make you look like a playground bully and detract from your (often strong) points. Let's debate the merits of the issues, shall we? Of course friends will make recommendations. Does that mean that the traditional filters (labels, studios, publishers) don't do a vastly superior job at identifying, developing, and promoting works that the public at large values?

Um. So then they're not overwhelmed by all the supposed "crap" on the internet, are they?

You're missing the point. The noise increases for consumers if we don't care that the traditional big filters (labels, studios, publishers) are driven out of business by piracy. Those traditional filters also play a crucial role in non-digital contexts, such as markets where computers and/or regular Internet access isn't available. Therefore, if we are considering what is best for "society" and the "public" it is important to consider those markets as well.

What are you suggesting, that if the big labels go out of business, radio stations (or whatever other outlets you have in mind) will start playing whatever random crap they can get their hands on? That doesn't make any sense.

Ah hypocrisy at work. Moreover, since when is supporting a position with evidence elitism?

Um. No. I wasn't saying [citation needed] overall is elitism. I was saying the suggestion via the [citation needed] that music today sucks is elitism. Everyone always likes to remember back to their younger days as having better music. And it's silly. There's always a ton of good music out there. Arguing that there's not is elitism or ignorance.

Do the personal jabs make your think your positions are stronger?

You made a stupid comment, pretending there were no such filters. I showed you how it was stupid. I'm sorry if you felt it was a personal jab.

Let's debate the merits of the issues, shall we? Of course friends will make recommendations. Does that mean that the traditional filters (labels, studios, publishers) don't do a vastly superior job at identifying, developing, and promoting works that the public at large values?

I'd argue that, yes, my friends do a much better job identifying and promoting works that I am interested in. Developing is a different issue, but that's a separate issue, and I'd argue that the major labels do a horrible job developing the vast majority of acts.

You're missing the point. The noise increases for consumers if we don't care that the traditional big filters (labels, studios, publishers) are driven out of business by piracy.

How so? I don't see them as being effective filters in the first place. As I said, I tend to rely on friends or services that know what I like. That has nothing to do with labels/studios/publishers.

Those traditional filters also play a crucial role in non-digital contexts, such as markets where computers and/or regular Internet access isn't available.

I'm not sure the point of this. In those markets, they're not inundated with the same amount of music that would require filters. Besides, in my experience working with/talking to musicians in such markets, they tend to rely a hell of a lot more on local filters anyway.

Therefore, if we are considering what is best for "society" and the "public" it is important to consider those markets as well.

Again, I think you underestimate the value of other filters outside of those you think work.

I was saying the suggestion via the [citation needed] that music today sucks is elitism

I made no such suggestion. In fact, I don't think music today sucks. I merely asked you to identify the source for your contention that there is more "good" music today "than ever before."

You made a stupid comment, pretending there were no such filters

Again, I did no such thing. I have no doubt that there are other filters. I merely asked you to identify the "good filters" you were speaking of. Why do you misrepresent my positions? Perhaps inventing arguments is your way of justifying childish responses?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ooootie Call.

Let me be clear on this point: Most music coming from the recording industry falls under the 'noise' category in my opinion. In your opinion, the non-recording industry stuff is 'noise.' In this case, you cannot say as a standard point that what you call 'noise' isn't music. That is only an opinion.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ooootie Call.

It removes the incentive from the people who we would like to have do it for a living (great singers and songwriters) and encourages (by low entry cost) untalented amateurs who think autotune is a great idea.

I can write a simple program that generates basic cord patterns and plays them via MIDI style controllers, using various instruments. The songs would be pretty random, but I can turn out hundreds of them a day. They won't be great, they won't even be good, but I can create volume.

Volume of crap isn't just immaterial, it is actually obstructionist. It gets in the way of people hearing good material, because they are too busy wading through crap.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ooootie Call.

> Honestly, if ice was free, plentiful, and delivered to your door for free every day, I suspect that there would be no refrigerator business, because nobody would invest to go up against free.

Then that would be an economic advance. If something becomes plentiful, we gain.

> That is what piracy does, it stunts the market and takes away people's desire to enter into the market.

Digital tech has made something plentiful -- means of copying and communicating data (etc.). 'Piracy' tries to realise those gains. People should be copying more -- that is a good thing, it realises the gains. People should not be paying more -- it cancels out the gains.

It is copyright that is stunting the gains of the internet. We have the greatest advance in information/communication tech in 500 years, and certain corporations are crying: " it is ruining the economy!!!", "it is destroying culture!!!" -- it really is laughably stupid.

Some people seem to have their minds locked in to a copyright world, unable to think of anything else. The reality is, we have people's capability to produce, and we have the given technological context, and we arrange things to suit those. And if copyright does not make much sense anymore, we do something else.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ooootie Call.

Going from ice boxes to refrigerators was a clear advance. It was great for consumers, it got rid of a messy, expensive, and inefficient system for distributing ice, and at the same time created a new business that was much more profitable for everyone involved. Even the ice makers moved to become refrigerator sellers. They went from one sort of product (ice as a service) to ice making machine (make your own ice at home).

Going from CDs to digital distribution was a clear advance. It was great for consumers, it got rid of a messy, expensive, and inefficient system for distributing music, and at the same time created a new business that was much more profitable for almost everyone involved. Even many music makers moved to free distribution. They went from one sort of product (music as a physical product) to another (selling other scarcities). Cool, huh?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ooootie Call.

Nasch,

Re the ice manufacturer/picking analogy, think of it this way: the "business model" of the ice companies was providing a service and delivering a product to consumers that, due to advances in technology, they were able to completely assume themselves. The refrigerator, not the ice manufacturers, now directly provides the service and the product consumers desire (the ice). In the case of copyright, on the other hand, consumers are still consuming the specific and unique product and service of the middlemen -- that is, the content funded and owned by the labels/studios/publishers -- without any compensation. Properly understood, the business model of content owners has not been outdated by technology; the Internet does not itself create or fund any content. Rather, it has provided a more efficient way to copy and share the product of another. That is in no way analogous to the ice manufacturer whose service was entirely replaced by a technology that now creates the identical product iteself.

It should also be noted that comparing ice (a physical product) to IP (non-physical) is something that IP detractors generally disdain. The hypocrisy seems clear.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ooootie Call.

I would say the business of owning content has indeed been outdated.

If it is "outdated" it is not because consumers no longer enjoy or desire the content produced by these businesses. While their product is extremely popular in the marketplace, it is only because of widespread, illegal activity that you deem these companies "outdated." The mere fact that piracy exists today does not mean that it will continue unregulated forever, and that those who depend on sales for their livelihood are all a part of an outdated business model.

To put it another way, I would agree with your position if the majority of consumers decided to support artists who create, fund, and distribute their music online for free (and sell ancillary products, tour, etc. to make money). In that circumstance, record labels would be driven out of the market by a legitimate competitor. However, it is more than a little problematic to say that a market participant is "outdated" when their business model produces a wildly popular product in the marketplace. As I've said before, it isn't the business that's broken, it's the locks on their door.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ooootie Call.

I said the ends (occassional increased sales, like O'Rielly, which may nor may not be attributable to piracy) doesn't justify random people feeling they have the right to choose for O'Rielly what is and what is not given away for free.

Noone here said they would.

TD generally ignores this little (and important) point.

No, it doesn't. TD rather points out that in reality it is alreaady happening like that and that methods used by rights-holders (DRM) won't do anything to change that.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ooootie Call.

TD rather points out that in reality it is alreaady happening like that and that methods used by rights-holders (DRM) won't do anything to change that.

See, in my view, piracy (at it's current levels) is a transient situation. The current situation isn't long term tolerable by anyone (except the consumer getting the free ride).

Most of the business models discussed here aren't durable, because they are predicated on a small number of people paying for the overall good of everyone. It's built on fewer people paying larger amounts, which is a situation that isn't tolerable in the long run.

So for me, the point at which TD starts these sorts of discussions is flawed because the assumption is that not only is piracy here, but it will expand to cover 100% of the market. So rather than wait for it, we should all just give up now and give everything away now. It is taking a short term trend and attempting to apply it long term without consideration that things may (and likely will) change.

Do you remember when My Space was "it"? Everyone and their dog was saying "this is the future of music marketing". Now My [blank] is laying off half it's staff and has become almost irrelevant. Things change.

So just laying down and saying "piracy is the future, give up now" just isn't going to cut it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ooootie Call.

So just laying down and saying "piracy is the future, give up now" just isn't going to cut it.

What's with you and pulling out statements of your a$$ that noone made here? The fact is that due to the incentives piracy won't go away ever. What's transient is how people will deal with it to still make money. The music industry learned it the hard way and Apple benefited a lot from it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ooootie Call.

That is perfectly fine. It is capitalism: if you cannot run a business, get out of business. If a type of business is not successful, it dies off.

> Legally, they aren't trying to prove net losses over an ecosystem, just direct losses from piracy.

Then they are not even starting with the right question. Since the purpose of copyright is to benefit the public, the fundamental question is whether the *public* are gaining or losing. Whether companies or producers are losing is, in itself, irrelevant.

Is the public interested in paying more to keep some business in comfortable profit? just for the sake of that business? No, of course not. The public, through government, sets up copyright arrangements and permits their restrictions only because the public expects a good deal overall.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ooootie Call.

That is perfectly fine. It is capitalism: if you cannot run a business, get out of business. If a type of business is not successful, it dies off.

I always get a laugh out of this argument, because it is very unrealistic in the current terms.

What would you call it if all the stores in your area closed because of excessive shoplifting? What would you say if every visitor to a restaurant did a dine and dash, if every bar patron stiffed the bartender and took the beer without paying, or if everyone in the movie theater just snuck in?

Would those all be unsuccessful business models?

No, I am not comparing piracy directly to the theft of solid goods. Rather, the idea is what would happen if we as a society tolerated that level of thievery? The answer is clear, those businesses would close and that would be that. Are their business models wrong? Not in the slightest. It isn't a business issue, it's a moralistic issue.

The public, through government, sets up copyright arrangements and permits their restrictions only because the public expects a good deal overall.

Piracy violates that agreement. It wouldn't be such an issue if the public didn't want the product. But they do. In droves and masses. But some people feel that they can ignore the agreement made, and still enjoy the fruits without having to fulfill their side of the agreement.

The public gets a great deal. The can see a $200 million movie for $10. They pay 0.000005% of the cost and get to enjoy the entire product. Holy crap, that is the bargain of the millennium.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ooootie Call.

What would you call it if all the stores in your area closed because of excessive shoplifting? What would you say if every visitor to a restaurant did a dine and dash, if every bar patron stiffed the bartender and took the beer without paying, or if everyone in the movie theater just snuck in?

Re: Re: Re: Ooootie Call.

Indeed. However, there is no talk of giving anything away. We are talking about making copies. The only reason artists etc can restrict who makes copies of things is because of this wacky manipulation of the market that people like to call copyright. They certainly do not have any inherent right to make something, show it to people and then prevent people from making their own copy of it, that is ridiculous. The only reason we have made the sacrifice of allowing copyright at all is to attempt to achieve an end of promoting art, science and progress.

If I really believed the ends don't justify the means, then I wouldn't be able to support copyright at all.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Ooootie Call.

Exactly.

By "giving something away", I was implying free copies, which is exactly what piracy does. The rights owns should be able to control all forms of distribution. That shouldn't be something decides by whoever feels like giving away copies.

Remember: if everyone has complete free access to all works without restriction and without payment, why would they pay anything for it? Without sources of income, those works will never be made (or certainly not made in the scale and numbers that they are currently made).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ooootie Call.

No one is giving away any free copies, people are making their own copies of something they were shown / given / sold / whatever, which no one has any moral right to restrict them from doing, they only have a legal right to restrict people from making copies, and the only reason they have that is as a means to an end.

I'm not forgetting why we have copyright, and I believe it is important, but if I thought the ends don't justify the means that really doesn't matter does it?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ooootie Call.

Or, more pointedly, if through studies we are able to determine that certain changes to the copyright law (be it increasing enforecement, decreasing enforcement, changing the time limit, or whatever) will have a better effect on our goal of promoting art, science and progress how can we say that we shouldn't make these changes because "the ends don't justify the means"? The whole idea of copyright is based on the concept that the ends do justify the means.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ooootie Call.

No they shouldn't, IP laws are monopolies and are bad at their core with rare exceptions to that rule.

Copyright holders should have just enough incentive to keep doing what they are doing and to get to that point we can cut a lot of fat that was imposed with the years.

Do you really thing anybody will stop making music because they can't make a billion dollars and instead are just making millions?

Do you believe is fair to make it criminal something that is inherently part of the human nature? Something that allowed humanity to grow?

Which is a great part of a stable society?
Sharing is at the core of success, not the individual success but us as a group, it is what enables people to work and get pass a lot of things, is what enables knowledge to spread and help the whole group and not just one individual and it is what makes as stronger in the face of adversities.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ooootie Call.

Again, this logic is a fail.

What you are telling the musician is that just writing and recording great music, music perhaps for the ages, is no longer an acceptable thing to do. You can only be a musician if you perform free shows, sell t-shirts, sign endorsement deals, or do something other than write and record music to make a living. Otherwise, your career as a song writer and interpreter are gone.

What you are doing is saying the creation of original work is all but meaningless. It isn't your ability to write a great song that matters, it's your ability to play it rote 300+ time per year.

Sort of like saying to Van Gogh that it isn't your paintings that have any real value, it's your ability to do 10 minutes comical sketches on the boardwalk that is truly important.

The era of piracy pretty much killed the idea of studio bands, may the idea RIP.

Re:

> that choice to give away something free should be up to the person who owns it, not random internet people

And that choice to give businesses the monopoly privileges of copyright, and to any particular degree, is up to the public -- yes, random internet people -- not the businesses or creators who pretend to 'own' those privileges.

I doubt it.

I'm certain it's simpler than you all make out. Based on their assumptions (their minds being made up and all), they see no potential for profit from conducting a study, and so they don't want to waste time and money on one.

While they may have some fear as to the results, I think profit is a sufficient motive to overcome that fear. I think they just don't see the potential. I can understand that. I don't agree with their assessment, but I understand it. I really don't think that some great shivering fear is the driver on this. They probably discount O'Reilly's results chalking it up to the particulars of their market niche.

unless the results come from 'studies' that have been funded by the various branches of the entertainment industries, they dont want anyone to see those results or will do as much as they can to call into disrepute those results and the people that carried out the studies. they know full well that if the 'powers that be' could be convinced to at least check the results, then the cat would be out of the bag and the constant 'we are being crippled by piracy' claims would fall flat. maybe piracy does diminish sales of various types of media, but nowhere near to the extent that is claimed and as is stated here, can actually increase sales. the most important thing is to give customers choices of what they want, how to get what they want, drm free and at sensible prices. customers are, however, at the bottom of the list, with corporate executives (and their outdated opinions and business models) are at the top, simply to keep prices fixed and their salaries at extortionate levels.

Publishers are not alone in this

This is TechDirt, so I know that we are going to worry about copyright more than anything else. Still....

I have tried to find any data to indicate that Credit Scores are related to risk, i.e. that Banks other lenders REALLY need to charge more interest to someone with a 650 score rather than a 700 score to make the same return.

In fact, when banks were on the edge, I heard EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE was true, that someone with a near perfect score never pays fees, pays lower interest, and in general avoids all the traps lenders set up to make more money. That someone with a 600 or 650 score is statistically the same risk as someone with a 700 or 750 score, but is going to pay way more fees and penalties plus pay the higher interest.

So this question is really just as relevant to the public as a whole. Why won't banks do the studies to PROVE their polices actually do account for added risk?? Because they can't, and in fact much of the whole "Credit Score" scam is just a legal way to collude to charge most Americans more money.

Because I don't pirate anything and am not exposed to "their" imaginary goods anymore and I'm not "buying" anything from them, that is real "no sales".

Who else is doing that?
Who else found legal alternatives that don't have those restrictions they are so fond of?

When I did pirate I did not know anything about alternatives or how good they were, now I know I can live without them with no problems what so ever and on the legal side no less, what they will complain next? I'm not buying, the ultimate control of the money is in my hands and I choose to ignore them from here now on.

Moral Highground

It's because they believe that they have the moral highground: "If I create something, then I should be able to dictate that no one can copy it, regardless of whether there might be benefits in it for me."

Also, many people simply cannot ignore the urge to create an analogy between imaginary property and real tangible property. The copying = stealing fallacy. Who would do research into letting people steal their property?